sturg33
I
Healthcare as a right implies medical care is guaranteed to you... which means someone - be it the tax payer, or the medical care provider, is losing individual liberty.
You can't grant a right that reduces another right
Affordable Care Act
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
Healthcare as a right implies medical care is guaranteed to you... which means someone - be it the tax payer, or the medical care provider, is losing individual liberty.
You can't grant a right that reduces another right
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
You can; indeed, you're advocating for it. Increasing individual economic liberty, to the detriment of society-wide quality of life, does just that.
sturg33
I
"society-wide quality of life" is not a right
57Brave
Well-known member
"everyone is a Libertarian until their house is 10' feet under water."
Charley Patton said that
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I disagree. Furthermore, I think it's a more important right to protect and promote than "individual economic liberty".
Bill Clinton added that ObamaCare "works fine" for people with "modest" incomes eligible for government subsidies but that "the people that are getting killed in this deal are small business people and individuals who make just a little too much to get any of these subsidies," the Daily Caller reported.*
“You’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half,” Clinton said. “It’s the craziest thing in the world.”*
“You’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half,” Clinton said. “It’s the craziest thing in the world.”*
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
The problem with the Affordable Care Act is precisely that it isn't socialized medicine; it's just a mandate to participate in the broken insurance system that was already failing prior to the ACA's implementation, with just a few important but relatively minor regulatory tweaks to said system.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
There's nothing stopping people from setting up their own socialized Healthcare group. Well except the fact that it only works if they use violence to force people who don't want it or need it to join as well.
sturg33
I
The only way to accomplish what you want is by force.
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
It's been absolutely brutal and as the premiums rise, they are a growing financial strain on my family. I'm one of the many Bill Clinton is talking about.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I'm not convinced of that, at least depending on what you mean by "force".
acesfull86
Well-known member
The last girl is like a caricature of a college aged Bernie supporter.
But 57 told us that premiums won't go up?
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
It's not really working, but what would work? I see Trump talking up Health Savings Accounts, but if you don't have money to put in one, what good are they? Tax incentives? Again, if you're poor and paying little in the way of taxes, what would that accomplish?
A Republican friend of mine and I were talking and he suggested that the feds/state come up with a plan to pay for 100% of catastrophic costs over a certain threshold, but one would still have to pay for the cost under the threshold. I suppose if the government were picking up catastrophic costs, the cost of premiums would go down because less would need to be covered.
I can only say as someone who views the whole health care system as a mess (and a costly mess at that), I was hoping for the ACA to do more positive besides lowering the number of uninsured. Granted, if insurers can't make money, they won't participate and the less competition, they higher the costs.
A Republican friend of mine and I were talking and he suggested that the feds/state come up with a plan to pay for 100% of catastrophic costs over a certain threshold, but one would still have to pay for the cost under the threshold. I suppose if the government were picking up catastrophic costs, the cost of premiums would go down because less would need to be covered.
I can only say as someone who views the whole health care system as a mess (and a costly mess at that), I was hoping for the ACA to do more positive besides lowering the number of uninsured. Granted, if insurers can't make money, they won't participate and the less competition, they higher the costs.
57Brave
Well-known member
http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief...er-the-aca-findings-from-a-literature-review/
//////////
To my mind the purpose of ACA was to get the uninsured access to care.
and yeah, Yuppies will have to pitch in for something that helps the greater rather than
Put on your big boy pants and help figure this out
//////////
To my mind the purpose of ACA was to get the uninsured access to care.
and yeah, Yuppies will have to pitch in for something that helps the greater rather than
Put on your big boy pants and help figure this out
sturg33
I
Oh... so you're no longer denying that costs are going up?
Congrats on spending all this money to get the insured americans rate from 85% to 90%... well done